TABLE OF CONTENTS. ++ PAGE. ARMS ACT (XI of 1878) ASSAM EMIGRATION ACT (I OF 1882) BURMA GAMING ACT (XVI OF 1884) CATTLE-TRESPASS ACT (I OF 1871) ... ... ... CRIMINAL TRIBES ACT (XXVII OF 1871) CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT (XI of 1890) DRAMATIC PERFORMANCES ACT (XIX of 1876) ADDENDA. P. 35, after 1. 20 from top of page, add— Where persons who went to execute a warrant of arrest, examined a palki coming out of the male apartments of the judgment-debtor's house, in spite of the protests of the persons accompanying the palki who said that, as was the fact, there was a lady in it, it was held that a conviction under s. 341 was wrong (Kanai Lal v. Queen-Empress, 24 Cal., 885). P. 44, 1. 6 from foot of page, after 16 Cal., 206, add— (Pachkauri v. Queen-Empress, 24 Cal., 686). P. 46, 1. 5 from top of page, add He is justified in taking such precautions as he thinks are required, and in using such force or violence as is necessary to prevent the aggression (Pachkauri v. Queen-Empress, 24 Cal., 686). P. 55, after 1. 21 from top of page, add— Sanction is not necessary for the prosecution of an abbettor of an offence mentioned in s. 195, Cr. P. C., though it is necessary for the prosecution of the principal (Queen-Empress v. Abdul Kadar, 20 Mad., 8). P. 258, after line 22, insert— The words "any person in possession" in this section do not mean only "a complainant in possession," there being no authority for taking the offences of mischief and criminal trespass out of the general rule which allows any person to complain of a criminal act (Imperatrix v. Keshavlal Jekrishna, 21 Bom., 536). P. 68, 1. 1, after (Weir, 27), add (Packkauri v. Queen-Empress, 24 Cal., 686). P. 69, 1. 6 of note to s. 143, add Where Police were assaulted when in attempting to execute a warrant, they arrested the wrong person, it was held that no offence had been committed (Queen-Empress v. Jogendro Nath Mukerjee, 24 Cal., 320). P. 79, 1. 21 from foot of page, after 5 W. R. Cr., 49, add — Where certain persons having been suspended from office a meeting was held at the house of the Village Patel, at which it was resolved that the persons suspended should be restored to office on paying a certain sum of money towards the repair of the village temple, it was held that the Patel being a public servant had committed an offence under this section (Imperatrix v. Appaji bin Yadavrao, 21 Bom., 517). P. 85, after 1. 9 from foot of page, insert— The offence contemplated by this section is an omission to appear before a specified public functionary, and therefore where the public servant was absent on the date fixed in a summons, it was held that the person summoned could not be convicted, though he failed to attend purposely (Queen-Empress v. Kishtappa, 20 Mad., 31). ⚫ P. 97, l. 9 from top, add— nor for resisting an attempt to arrest the wrong person (Queen-Empress v. Jogendro Nath Mukerjee, 24 Cal., 320). P. 98, 1. 18 from foot of page, after 24 W. R. Cr., 20, add— nor for neglecting to obey an order by the President of a Local Board directing him to remove certain encroachments (Queen-Empress v. Subramanian, 20 Mad., 1). P. 119, 1. 11 from foot of page, after P. R. (84) 27, add— (Queen-Empress v. Nanjunda Rau, 20 Mad., 79). P. 127, 1. 22 from foot of page, after 6 All., 42, add— This case, however, was not followed by another Bench of the Allahabad High Court, so far as this point is concerned (See Queen-Empress v. Nand Kishore, 19 All., 305). P. 194, at end of note to s. 341, add— Where persons who went to execute a warrant of arrest, examined a palki coming out of the male apartments of the judgment-debtor's house, in spite of the protests of the persons accompanying the palki who said that, as was the fact, there was a lady in it, it was held that having regard to s. 79 a conviction under this section was wrong (Kanai Lal v. Queen-Empress 24, Cal., 885). P. 205, to note to s. 363, add Apparently kidnapping from lawful guardianship is not a continuing offence (QueenEmpress v. Ram Sundar, 19 All., 109). P. 220, after 1. 3 from top, insert-- A conviction of the same person for theft, and for attempting to conceal the stolen property is bad (Zinda v. Queen-Empress, P. R. (96), 37). P. 225, to note to s. 390, add- Where a Police Sergeant arrested two persons on a false charge and obtained Rs. 7 from them on promise of release, and then threatened that unless they gave him Rs. 200 he would have them confined in the lock-up of which he said he had the key, and keep them there for months while a charge of bribery against them in respect of the Rs. 7 was being investigated, and on this threat was allowed to take some property belonging to one of the persons threatened, it was held that the offence came under this section (Basant Rai v. Queen-Empress (P.R.), 96, 34). P. 244, l. 17 from top of page, after 1 Agra (Cr., 9), add— nor can a person be convicted of theft, and of attempting to conceal the stolen property (Zinda v. Queen-Empress (P.R.), 96, 37). P. 265, to note to s. 451, add Where the prospective offence is adultery, it is necessary to show that there has been no consent or connivance on the part of the husband of the woman, the intent to commit adultery with whom is charged against the accused (Brij Basi v. Queen-Empress, 19 All., 74). P. 312, after 1. 12 from top, insert— A conviction of the same person for theft, and for attempting to conceal the stolen property is bad (Zinda v. Queen-Empress, P. R. (96), 37). P. 382, at end of note to s. 1, add Warrants issued under this section may be executed outside the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate issuing them (Queen-Empress v. Kattayan, 20 Mad., 235). P. 382, at end of note te s. 1, add A Magistrate is bound to satisfy himself that a good prima facie case is made out before he issues process, and when reasonable ground is made out he is bound to put the law in force and cannot refer the complainant to the Civil Court (Mana Lal v. Naha, P.R (96), 39). P. 383, at end of note to s. 2, add— Proceedings may be instituted against a person either in a Court within whose local limits he resides or in a Court within whose local limits he refuses to perform his contract and a warrant issued by the latter Court may be executed outside the limits of its local jurisdiction (Mana Lal v. Nahia, P.R. (96), 39). P. 442, after 1. 26, insert— Although cowries are not instruments of gaming, evidence that they have been used in a particular house for gaming, will bring the house within s. 6 (Queen-Empress v. Bala Misra, 19 All., 311). P. 445, at end of note to s. 6, add— Although cowries are not instruments of gaming, evidence that they have been used in a particular house for gaming, will bring the house within this section (Queen-Empress v. Bala Misra, 19 All., 311). P. 494, at end of note to s. 269, add It is not an unlawful or negligent act to refuse to allow a person suffering from an infectious complaint to be removed from his house to a hospital (Cahoon v. Mathews, 24 Cal., 494). P. 535, 1. 19 from foot of page, insert— The word "solemnize" is equivalent to the words "conduct, celebrate, or perform." Therefore any unauthorized person not being one of the persons being married, who takes part in performing a marriage, that is in doing any act supposed to be material to constitute the marriage, is liable to be convicted under this section; and a charge of abetment is sustainable against the persons being married (Queen-Empress v. Paul, 20 Mad., 12). P. 573, at end of note to s. 9, add- An offence under this section is a non-cognizable one, and is therefore one for which by s. 4, Cr. P. C., a Police-officer cannot arrest without warrant; and he has, therefore, under s. 155 of the Code, no authority to investigate such an offence without the order of a Magistrate; nor under s. 165 can he make a search in respect of it (Bahabal Shah v. Tarak Nath Chowdhry, 24 Cal., 691). A conviction under this section must be by a Magistrate, and a Magistrate therefore has no power to commit to the Court of Session (Queen-Empress v. Schade, 19 All., 465). ACT No. IV OF 1898. An Act to amend the Indian Penal Code. WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the Indian Penal Code; It is hereby enacted as follows: Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences. 1. (1) This Act may be called "The Indian Penal Code Amendment Act, 1898 ;" and (2) It shall come into force at once. 2. Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby repealed, and the following section is substituted therefor, namely : "4. The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by (1) any Native Indian subject of Her Majesty in any place without and beyond British India; (2) any other British subject within the territories of any Native Prince or Chief in India; (3) any servant of the Queen, whether a British subject or not, within the territories of any Native Prince or Chief in India. Explanation.-In this section the word 'offence' includes every act committed outside British India which, if committed in British India, would be punishable under this. Code. |